NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS
OccasioNl! Papu.fillSociologyattdAItlNopoiogypublishesarticles,or1sinalresearch papers, research reports, review articles. book-reviews, dissenation ahttractl, profeuional announcement.
andother infonnation of interesu to the sociology and anthropology of Nepllllnd other Himalayan region.BothforeIgnand Nepalese~hol.nmay submit their articles.
Material submitted for !.his journal shouldbeeither in Eng(jsh or Nepali. Authors musl take the full responsibility for the originality, coolents and opinions expressed in their articles. The copyrighted material which is tobereproduced in the articles, must be suitably acknowledged.
Contributors are requened to send,ifpossible, their material on computerfloppydisks using IBM compcautXe word processing programmes. They may, however, send one copy of lhe manuscript separately. The texts. notes and references should beIypeddouble spaced. All pages should be numbered. The title of the paper, author (5)' name:s, affiliations and complete addn:ss should appelr on lhe: first page:.
The: anthfOJX>logieal style: of refcn:ncing is preferred. The texts should refer to notes numbered consecutivdy.AUnot.es and footnotes should appear at the endofthe paper. Rook-reviews should nOl, however, conlain fOOlnotes; all references should be incorporated in lhe leX! itself.
Citation in thetextshould include the aulhor's surname, yea.rofpubliCltion and page number, e.g.(SOrokin:1978 49).Ulhe publication to be citedISauthored by more than two persons, then use: the sumameoflhe first author, to be followedbyet 01 Uthe same reference is cited more than oncecontinuously, useibidafter having given the full referc:nce once,butgiving relevant page numberifit is differenL
Entries fOf the bibliographical list should follow the following order: I.authoris) name (surname, followed by full first name Of inillals); 2.thc: yearofpublication; 3. the uueofpubljeatioo along its editioo number:4.place of publlcalloo;5.publisher's name:. Or, If the: referenceISto an article from anedited book, then give the name of the author as suggested above, the yearof publication, the t1ue of the article, the Ilue of theOOok, editor's name, place of puhllcation, and publisher's name, e.g.Greenwald Stephen. 1978. 'The Role of the Pnest In Newer Society: Himalayan Anthropoiogy. Ed James Fisher. The Hague Mouton.
If the refermce is fromI periodical, give the nameofthe lutMr as suggested above, the year of publication, the tiue of the article, the tiue of the periodical With its volume nomber, and page number, e.g.Gray John.N . 1980 "Hypergamy.Costeand Kinship among theChetus of Nepal.' Contrbutions to Indian Sociology.14 1-34.
Inall casesifthe year and the place of pubheatioo are missing, usen.d andn.p . respectively.
The bibliographical list shOuld prcferahly include only the works cited. Use double qUOle marks (" to)while quoting sentences ora single wordlphrase. SmgleqOOlcs (' ') should be usedonly within the double quotes. Use spellings as followed m the OxfOfd Dictionary. Contributors are requested to maintain consistency through out their anicles.
AU COITespondc:nceS related to editorial as weU IS subscription should be addressed 10:
The Managing Editor,
OCCasiOMiPapersinSociology and AniNopology, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology,
Tribhuvan University, Kinlpur, Kathmandu.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 4
Journal of
Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
1994 NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS
OccasioNl! Papu.fillSociologyattdAItlNopoiogypublishesarticles,or1sinalresearch papers, research reports, review articles. book-reviews, dissenation ahttractl, profeuional announcement.
andother infonnation of interesu to the sociology and anthropology of Nepllllnd other Himalayan region.BothforeIgnand Nepalese~hol.nmay submit their articles.
Material submitted for !.his journal shouldbeeither in Eng(jsh or Nepali. Authors musl take the full responsibility for the originality, coolents and opinions expressed in their articles. The copyrighted material which is tobereproduced in the articles, must be suitably acknowledged.
Contributors are requened to send,ifpossible, their material on computerfloppydisks using IBM compcautXe word processing programmes. They may, however, send one copy of lhe manuscript separately. The texts. notes and references should beIypeddouble spaced. All pages should be numbered. The title of the paper, author (5)' name:s, affiliations and complete addn:ss should appelr on lhe: first page:.
The: anthfOJX>logieal style: of refcn:ncing is preferred. The texts should refer to notes numbered consecutivdy.AUnot.es and footnotes should appear at the endofthe paper. Rook-reviews should nOl, however, conlain fOOlnotes; all references should be incorporated in lhe leX! itself.
Citation in thetextshould include the aulhor's surname, yea.rofpubliCltion and page number, e.g.(SOrokin:1978 49).Ulhe publication to be citedISauthored by more than two persons, then use: the sumameoflhe first author, to be followedbyet 01 Uthe same reference is cited more than oncecontinuously, useibidafter having given the full referc:nce once,butgiving relevant page numberifit is differenL
Entries fOf the bibliographical list should follow the following order: I.authoris) name (surname, followed by full first name Of inillals); 2.thc: yearofpublication; 3. the uueofpubljeatioo along its editioo number:4.place of publlcalloo;5.publisher's name:. Or, If the: referenceISto an article from anedited book, then give the name of the author as suggested above, the yearof publication, the t1ue of the article, the Ilue of theOOok, editor's name, place of puhllcation, and publisher's name, e.g.Greenwald Stephen. 1978. 'The Role of the Pnest In Newer Society: Himalayan Anthropoiogy. Ed James Fisher. The Hague Mouton.
If the refermce is fromI periodical, give the nameofthe lutMr as suggested above, the year of publication, the tiue of the article, the tiue of the periodical With its volume nomber, and page number, e.g.Gray John.N . 1980 "Hypergamy.Costeand Kinship among theChetus of Nepal.' Contrbutions to Indian Sociology.14 1-34.
Inall casesifthe year and the place of pubheatioo are missing, usen.d andn.p . respectively.
The bibliographical list shOuld prcferahly include only the works cited. Use double qUOle marks (" to)while quoting sentences ora single wordlphrase. SmgleqOOlcs (' ') should be usedonly within the double quotes. Use spellings as followed m the OxfOfd Dictionary. Contributors are requested to maintain consistency through out their anicles.
AU COITespondc:nceS related to editorial as weU IS subscription should be addressed 10:
The Managing Editor,
OCCasiOMiPapersinSociology and AniNopology, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology,
Tribhuvan University, Kinlpur, Kathmandu.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 4
Journal of
Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
1994
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 4
EdilOrial Board RishiktshiJb Raj Rtgmi
Gopal Singh Ntpali KaiJash Nalh Pyakurtl
ChiJiJanya Mishra
Managing Editor Youba Raj Luinltl
Published by
Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology Tribhuvan University. Kirtipur.
Kathmandu. Nepal.
1994
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 4
EdilOrial Board RishiktshiJb Raj Rtgmi
Gopal Singh Ntpali KaiJash Nalh Pyakurtl
ChiJiJanya Mishra
Managing Editor Youba Raj Luinltl
Published by
Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology Tribhuvan University. Kirtipur.
Kathmandu. Nepal.
1994
Copyright© 1994
by Centrol Deportment of Sociology/Anthropology Tribhuvon University, Kiriipur
All rights Reserved
Cover Photo: A Gurung Girl: by R. R. Regmi
Printedof:Modern Printing Press
Table of Contents
1. EdilDrial Note
2. An!hropology, Development and Public Policy - Gerald D. Be"eman 3. Development Issues Raised During
the "People's Movement" of 1990
-KrishnaB. BhaltacluJn 4. A,n!hropological Perspectives on Grassroots
DevelopmentinNepal
-PadilmwiDevlco/a 5. DeforestationandRural Society in the Nepalese Terai
-RishiJceshab Raj Reg"';
6. The Current Socioeconomic Status of Untouchables in Nepal
-ThamasCo:x:
7. Group Process for People's Participation
in Rural Nepal: Reflections from a Micro Level Study -fouba Raj Luin/el 8. Sherpa Buddhists on a Regional Pilgrimage:
The Case of Maratika Cave at Haiase
-Eberhard Berg 9: Book-Review
- HerrUJnJKumarJha
10. Contributor.;
II. Faculty of !he Depanment
Page
I
3
33
50
72
90
110
124
146 150 151 Copyright© 1994
by Centrol Deportment of Sociology/Anthropology Tribhuvon University, Kiriipur
All rights Reserved
Cover Photo: A Gurung Girl: by R. R. Regmi
Printedof:Modern Printing Press
Table of Contents
1. EdilDrial Note
2. An!hropology, Development and Public Policy - Gerald D. Be"eman 3. Development Issues Raised During
the "People's Movement" of 1990
-KrishnaB. BhaltacluJn 4. A,n!hropological Perspectives on Grassroots
DevelopmentinNepal
-PadilmwiDevlco/a 5. DeforestationandRural Society in the Nepalese Terai
-RishiJceshab Raj Reg"';
6. The Current Socioeconomic Status of Untouchables in Nepal
-ThamasCo:x:
7. Group Process for People's Participation
in Rural Nepal: Reflections from a Micro Level Study -fouba Raj Luin/el 8. Sherpa Buddhists on a Regional Pilgrimage:
The Case of Maratika Cave at Haiase
-Eberhard Berg 9: Book-Review
- HerrUJnJKumarJha
10. Contributor.;
II. Faculty of !he Depanment
Page
I
3
33
50
72
90
110
124
146 150 151
-
Editorial Note
This volume -- which is the fourth in the series -- is an endeavor by the Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University to continue its tradition to bring out a journal embodying material of theoretical and empirical nature in the fields of social sciences. The present volume especially includes contributions both by the foreign and Nepalese scholars on some of the burning issues of contemporary Nepal.
Although the intention of the editorial board is to bring out regularly a bi-annualjournal, this has not, however, been possible for the present for a variety of reasons. So we have to remain satisfied withthis annual publication. Even in the case ofthe present volume, the odds weretooheavy. Financial support was not easy to come by.
And with great difficulty one could be able to manage the articles whicb have been included in the volume. These and many other reasons were also responsible for its late publication. Hopefully, we would be able to overcome these difficulties in future.
The editorial board would be glad to receive comments and suggestions from the readers with a viewtoimproving the quality of this journal.
Finally, the editorial board would like to thank all those who have made it possible to bring out this volume. Foremost, we thank the contributors who, despite their heavy schedule, could contribute articles for this volume. We also place on record our great appreciation ofthose colleagues who have placed at our disposal their valuable time for doing the editing and proof-reading.
December,l994
ProfessorR. R.Regmi for
Editorial Board.
-
Editorial Note
This volume -- which is the fourth in the series -- is an endeavor by the Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University to continue its tradition to bring out a journal embodying material of theoretical and empirical nature in the fields of social sciences. The present volume especially includes contributions both by the foreign and Nepalese scholars on some of the burning issues of contemporary Nepal.
Although the intention of the editorial board is to bring out regularly a bi-annualjournal, this has not, however, been possible for the present for a variety of reasons. So we have to remain satisfied withthis annual publication. Even in the case ofthe present volume, the odds weretooheavy. Financial support was not easy to come by.
And with great difficulty one could be able to manage the articles whicb have been included in the volume. These and many other reasons were also responsible for its late publication. Hopefully, we would be able to overcome these difficulties in future.
The editorial board would be glad to receive comments and suggestions from the readers with a viewtoimproving the quality of this journal.
Finally, the editorial board would like to thank all those who have made it possible to bring out this volume. Foremost, we thank the contributors who, despite their heavy schedule, could contribute articles for this volume. We also place on record our great appreciation ofthose colleagues who have placed at our disposal their valuable time for doing the editing and proof-reading.
December,l994
ProfessorR. R.Regmi for
Editorial Board.
-
ANTHROPOLOGY, DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY'
Gerald D. Berreman INTRODUCTION
I want to thank the members of the Central Department of Sociology!
Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, and the United States Educational Foundation and its Fulbright program for making it possible for me to visit this fine land and people for half a year. I have done researchrecurren~yfor over 35 years in India. mainly in the topographically similar. and culturally related Garhwal Himalayas. but this is my first opponunity to spend a significant amount of time in Nepal.
I have been asked to speak as an anthropologist. about the contributions anthropologists might make to development efforts in Nepal. I will do so. but wUl go beyond development. to refer more broadly to our actual and potential contributions to public policy formation in general (cf. Campbell. Shrestha and Stone. 1979; Messerschmidt. 1992).
In connection with the Himalayan Film Festival held herein February.
sponsored by Himal magazine. I was quotedinthe Kathmandu Post of February 27.1994. as having said inan interview:
"Anthropologists would say most development programmes are harmful. If anthropologists hearofa project. the fIrSt thing they would say is 'don't do it'.... You should have people speak for themselves."
(Khanal. p. 4; cf. Shah. 1994)
Although that quotation requires considerable contextualization for its impon to be fully understood. I did say something very like thatandI do believe il That is. I believe that many or most anthropologists have come to that conclusion. and I also believe the conclusion to be justified by the evidence -- it
3
Occasional Paper. inSociologyandAnlhropology, Volume. (1_)
-
ANTHROPOLOGY, DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY'
Gerald D. Berreman INTRODUCTION
I want to thank the members of the Central Department of Sociology!
Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, and the United States Educational Foundation and its Fulbright program for making it possible for me to visit this fine land and people for half a year. I have done researchrecurren~yfor over 35 years in India. mainly in the topographically similar. and culturally related Garhwal Himalayas. but this is my first opponunity to spend a significant amount of time in Nepal.
I have been asked to speak as an anthropologist. about the contributions anthropologists might make to development efforts in Nepal. I will do so. but wUl go beyond development. to refer more broadly to our actual and potential contributions to public policy formation in general (cf. Campbell. Shrestha and Stone. 1979; Messerschmidt. 1992).
In connection with the Himalayan Film Festival held herein February.
sponsored by Himal magazine. I was quotedinthe Kathmandu Post of February 27.1994. as having said inan interview:
"Anthropologists would say most development programmes are harmful. If anthropologists hearofa project. the fIrSt thing they would say is 'don't do it'.... You should have people speak for themselves."
(Khanal. p. 4; cf. Shah. 1994)
Although that quotation requires considerable contextualization for its impon to be fully understood. I did say something very like thatandI do believe il That is. I believe that many or most anthropologists have come to that conclusion. and I also believe the conclusion to be justified by the evidence -- it
3
Occasional Paper. inSociologyandAnlhropology, Volume. (1_)
cenainly accords with my own experience (Berrernan, 1963a:284-293, 311·335;
1963b; 1977: 178-182; 1979a; 1983a; 1989). This is nOl because development is necessarily bad, but because unfortunately, it usually is bad. Why? Because development is characteristically planned and implemented by people with moneytospend,agendastocarry out, and the authority -- the power--todo so.
The fatalllaw is that they arenotthe people whom it is intendedto"develop,"
andthey often know little about those people, their lives, theirneedsand their wants.
I will elaborate this point with the thought that anthropologists, as a result of their people-oriented perspective and research, are in a position 10 make a positive contribution 10 the situation, if not 10 remedy it They are, that is, if they are giventileopportunity. What I have 10 say will apply 10 a significant extent to sociologists as well, but for simplicity's salce, I will refer explicitly onlyto anthropologists.
I think it is important 10 make this last pointclear because I am affiliatedbere with the Central DepartmentofSociology/ Anthropology atTribhuvan University.
In addition, I feel qualified 10 make that claim because I obtained my Ph.D. in a (then) joint department of anthropology and sociology at Cornell University with sociology as a minor field, and my father was a sociologist, and more importantly in the presentcontext, my wife Keiko Yamanaka is a sociologist! So, I can claim 10 be sociologically informed, at least by association. Iturnnow 10 topic for today.
ANTHROPOLOGY IN NEPAL
A brochure issued in about 1978 by Tribhuvan University's then newly established Department of Sociology / Anthropology (also sometimes called the Department of Anthropology and Sociology), quoted by Bishnu Bhandari in his article on "The Past and Future of Sociology in Nepal," published in 1990 in the Department'sOccasionalPapersinSociologyandAnlhropology(Bhandari,199O) had this to say:
"The ultimate purpose [of the department] is to provide students with the theoretical and practical tools that will enable themtoassist in the development of the country as planners, administrators, social researchers and teachers". (p.15)
Already, then, the relevance of anthropology to development was made centraltothe definition of the department
4
Bhandari then offered thirteen suggestions as an "Agenda for the Future"
of the Department I will stress four of these here,beginning with histhird suggestion:
"3. Define Research Areas 10 be Covered
.In light of the current situation in Nepal, potential areas [of research] may include poverty, regional inequality, class formation, agrarian class, people'sparticipation,social problems, basic needs, decentralization, women's studies, land tenure systems, population, environment, prescriptive research, the state,
etc"
(p. 19)Here again we see a central concern with JlI3Ctical issues,but litis time focussing on socialandeconomic issues ratherthanon "development" as such -- on feltneedsof people,rather than(as is most often the case with development programmes) on agendassetfrom above by government. orfrom abroad by foreign or international agencies.
Another of Bhandari's agenda items which most interest me today is his ninth:
"9. Shift the Focus
of
Research from the Descriptive 10 the Prescriptive... There is aneed for explanation and a shift from asking 'what' and'how' 10 'why' and 'what must be done.'" (p.19)
This is a principled stance that goes beyond seeking simple facts to addressingissues.
Yet another agenda item that allracts my auention is Bhandari's tenth:
"10.Strike a Balance between the Quantitative and Qualitative [in research methods].
Qualitative as well as quantitative information are the two sides of complete research work. Research in Nepal tends 10 be heavily biased in one aspect or another. Studies that over emphasize the quantitative can be interpreted in rnany different waysandconsequently usedtojustify almost anything.An over emphasis on quality often is nOl taken seriously. Work should be balanced between the two ...
(pp.19-20)
Finally, the suggested agenda item that may beatonce the most controversial 5
cenainly accords with my own experience (Berrernan, 1963a:284-293, 311·335;
1963b; 1977: 178-182; 1979a; 1983a; 1989). This is nOl because development is necessarily bad, but because unfortunately, it usually is bad. Why? Because development is characteristically planned and implemented by people with moneytospend,agendastocarry out, and the authority -- the power--todo so.
The fatalllaw is that they arenotthe people whom it is intendedto"develop,"
andthey often know little about those people, their lives, theirneedsand their wants.
I will elaborate this point with the thought that anthropologists, as a result of their people-oriented perspective and research, are in a position 10 make a positive contribution 10 the situation, if not 10 remedy it They are, that is, if they are giventileopportunity. What I have 10 say will apply 10 a significant extent to sociologists as well, but for simplicity's salce, I will refer explicitly onlyto anthropologists.
I think it is important 10 make this last pointclear because I am affiliatedbere with the Central DepartmentofSociology/ Anthropology atTribhuvan University.
In addition, I feel qualified 10 make that claim because I obtained my Ph.D. in a (then) joint department of anthropology and sociology at Cornell University with sociology as a minor field, and my father was a sociologist, and more importantly in the presentcontext, my wife Keiko Yamanaka is a sociologist! So, I can claim 10 be sociologically informed, at least by association. Iturnnow 10 topic for today.
ANTHROPOLOGY IN NEPAL
A brochure issued in about 1978 by Tribhuvan University's then newly established Department of Sociology / Anthropology (also sometimes called the Department of Anthropology and Sociology), quoted by Bishnu Bhandari in his article on "The Past and Future of Sociology in Nepal," published in 1990 in the Department'sOccasionalPapersinSociologyandAnlhropology(Bhandari,199O) had this to say:
"The ultimate purpose [of the department] is to provide students with the theoretical and practical tools that will enable themtoassist in the development of the country as planners, administrators, social researchers and teachers". (p.15)
Already, then, the relevance of anthropology to development was made centraltothe definition of the department
4
Bhandari then offered thirteen suggestions as an "Agenda for the Future"
of the Department I will stress four of these here,beginning with histhird suggestion:
"3. Define Research Areas 10 be Covered
.In light of the current situation in Nepal, potential areas [of research] may include poverty, regional inequality, class formation, agrarian class, people'sparticipation,social problems, basic needs, decentralization, women's studies, land tenure systems, population, environment, prescriptive research, the state,
etc"
(p. 19)Here again we see a central concern with JlI3Ctical issues,but litis time focussing on socialandeconomic issues ratherthanon "development" as such -- on feltneedsof people,rather than(as is most often the case with development programmes) on agendassetfrom above by government. orfrom abroad by foreign or international agencies.
Another of Bhandari's agenda items which most interest me today is his ninth:
"9. Shift the Focus
of
Research from the Descriptive 10 the Prescriptive... There is aneed for explanation and a shift from asking 'what' and'how' 10 'why' and 'what must be done.'" (p.19)
This is a principled stance that goes beyond seeking simple facts to addressingissues.
Yet another agenda item that allracts my auention is Bhandari's tenth:
"10.Strike a Balance between the Quantitative and Qualitative [in research methods].
Qualitative as well as quantitative information are the two sides of complete research work. Research in Nepal tends 10 be heavily biased in one aspect or another. Studies that over emphasize the quantitative can be interpreted in rnany different waysandconsequently usedtojustify almost anything.An over emphasis on quality often is nOl taken seriously. Work should be balanced between the two ...
(pp.19-20)
Finally, the suggested agenda item that may beatonce the most controversial 5
-
and Ihe most obviously important is his twelfth:
"12. MaJcjng the Discipline Indigenous
... Borrowed modes of theory often adulterate the society and culwre and prevent underslanding our own society and its problems.
Sociologyhasa national character in other countries, SO why not here?
[He cites Dar Bahadur Bisla here).
There is a need to develop melhodsand teehniquessuited to local conditions. To achieve Ihis, teaching and research problems must be reoriented. Nepali examples should be given in the classroom. The medium of instruction should be in Nepali,and [appropriate] educational materials need to be made available." (p.20)
Itis in Ihe spiritoflhis last suggestion, "Making the Discipline Indigenous,"
lhat I begin my Ialk wilh Bhandari's suggestions. For, as I advocate Ihat development must be an indigenous process from formulation Ihrough Implemenlauon,I also believe Ihat Ihedefinition oflhe resources Ihat inform lhat process - - including Ihe academic resources -- must be indigenous. This does not preclude horrowing, for all of cultureand knowledge is largely shared, but it does mean Ihat such academic horrowj1'g should be indigenously motivated, selected and implemented. That is, it comes from wilhin, according to indigenous defintUons of relevance and in response to indigenous circumslances. And, because most societies (including conspicuously Nepal's), are distinctly plural (heterogeneous, wilh divergent cultures and interests), there mustbepanicipation from Ihroughoutlhe society in defining policies and programs -- by all e1hnic groups, social classes, castes, genders elC. This, after all, is what democracy is ahout, to which Ihis nation is now committed.
The well-being oflhose members of the society who are the most vulnerable, the most poverty-stricken, Ihe most despised, the most remote, Ihe fewest in number is inextricably linked to (and is as important as) Ihat of Ihe most powerful,lhe most privileged,lhe most honored and Ihe most plentiful.The fate of Ihe smallest minority is inseparable frorn Ihat of every other segment of the society. It is absolutely essentiallhat Ihisberecognized and acted upon if Ihis, or any olher, nation is to survive in Ihe contemporary world. People who are oppressed or excluded inevilably become angry, resentful people; Ihose who oppress or shun Ihem Iherefore become vulnerable to their anger and resenunent -- increasingly so as technology gives resentful people Ihe means to vent their anger upon Iheir oppressors. That is,lhe products of oppression are visited upon
6
!
the oppressors, and as Kardiner and Ovesey concluded nearly fifty years ago in The Mark of Oppression, Iheir classic (allhough in many ways now ouUlated) studyofconsequences of the oppression of Blacks in America, "there is only one way thalthe products of oppression can be dissolved. and thatisto stop the oppression"(Kardinerand Ovesey, 1951 :387). This requires, of course, Ihatlhe social, economic and political systems which are Ihe bases for oppression must be removed. Thus, social justice is not only amoralimperative, it is a practical imperative as well, for it is in Ihe vila! personal interest of every individual and groupand of Ihe society as a whole (Berreman, 1980).
'DEVELOPMENT' AS 'PROGRESS': CONCEPT AND PROCESS Wilh lhat in mind, I willturnto development as a process: The fascination wilhdeveloprnent blossomed in the self-described "developed nations" of North America and Europe, following World War II.Itwas motivated by Ihedesire to rebuild the devaslation of war, and to build a world market-place for Ihe victors.
The rationale was, ofcourse: "progress," elhnocentrically defined as movement toward a Western (and in most cases capilalist) way of life.
Critics of Ihis view, aIlhough out numbered, were significant and vocal.
Prominent among Ihem, for example, was Gunder Frank. Basing his analysis largelyon his work in Latin America, he mainlained Ihat "development" does noi improve quality of life,first, because it does not respond to Ihe needs of people, and second, because it magnifies social inequality -- social and economic disparity -- increasing holh poverty and weallh and therefore Ihe gap hCtween them, wilhin and between societies (Frank, 1967; 1969).
Based upon Iheir experience in developing societies and in cross-eultural research, anthropologist have come to include many of the most persistent skeptics and critics of development projects and of Ihe very concept of development. This is because anlhropologists tend to study, and Iherefore to be intimately familiar with,lhose "targeted" by development schemes --Ihose who are to bedeveloped. That is,lhey corne to know Ihose whose lives and environments are to be managed -- often are to be exploited -- for development. To know such people is to underSland Ihem and to underSland Ihem leads one to empalhize with them and Iheir problems.
Not only are development and its goals almost always defined, designed andimplemented by outsiders but, as a result, whatever benefits may accrue go to Ihose same outsiders or Iheir allies among elites of Ihe targeted societies. This
7
-
and Ihe most obviously important is his twelfth:
"12. MaJcjng the Discipline Indigenous
... Borrowed modes of theory often adulterate the society and culwre and prevent underslanding our own society and its problems.
Sociologyhasa national character in other countries, SO why not here?
[He cites Dar Bahadur Bisla here).
There is a need to develop melhodsand teehniquessuited to local conditions. To achieve Ihis, teaching and research problems must be reoriented. Nepali examples should be given in the classroom. The medium of instruction should be in Nepali,and [appropriate] educational materials need to be made available." (p.20)
Itis in Ihe spiritoflhis last suggestion, "Making the Discipline Indigenous,"
lhat I begin my Ialk wilh Bhandari's suggestions. For, as I advocate Ihat development must be an indigenous process from formulation Ihrough Implemenlauon,I also believe Ihat Ihedefinition oflhe resources Ihat inform lhat process - - including Ihe academic resources -- must be indigenous. This does not preclude horrowing, for all of cultureand knowledge is largely shared, but it does mean Ihat such academic horrowj1'g should be indigenously motivated, selected and implemented. That is, it comes from wilhin, according to indigenous defintUons of relevance and in response to indigenous circumslances. And, because most societies (including conspicuously Nepal's), are distinctly plural (heterogeneous, wilh divergent cultures and interests), there mustbepanicipation from Ihroughoutlhe society in defining policies and programs -- by all e1hnic groups, social classes, castes, genders elC. This, after all, is what democracy is ahout, to which Ihis nation is now committed.
The well-being oflhose members of the society who are the most vulnerable, the most poverty-stricken, Ihe most despised, the most remote, Ihe fewest in number is inextricably linked to (and is as important as) Ihat of Ihe most powerful,lhe most privileged,lhe most honored and Ihe most plentiful.The fate of Ihe smallest minority is inseparable frorn Ihat of every other segment of the society. It is absolutely essentiallhat Ihisberecognized and acted upon if Ihis, or any olher, nation is to survive in Ihe contemporary world. People who are oppressed or excluded inevilably become angry, resentful people; Ihose who oppress or shun Ihem Iherefore become vulnerable to their anger and resenunent -- increasingly so as technology gives resentful people Ihe means to vent their anger upon Iheir oppressors. That is,lhe products of oppression are visited upon
6
!
the oppressors, and as Kardiner and Ovesey concluded nearly fifty years ago in The Mark of Oppression, Iheir classic (allhough in many ways now ouUlated) studyofconsequences of the oppression of Blacks in America, "there is only one way thalthe products of oppression can be dissolved. and thatisto stop the oppression"(Kardinerand Ovesey, 1951 :387). This requires, of course, Ihatlhe social, economic and political systems which are Ihe bases for oppression must be removed. Thus, social justice is not only amoralimperative, it is a practical imperative as well, for it is in Ihe vila! personal interest of every individual and groupand of Ihe society as a whole (Berreman, 1980).
'DEVELOPMENT' AS 'PROGRESS': CONCEPT AND PROCESS Wilh lhat in mind, I willturnto development as a process: The fascination wilhdeveloprnent blossomed in the self-described "developed nations" of North America and Europe, following World War II.Itwas motivated by Ihedesire to rebuild the devaslation of war, and to build a world market-place for Ihe victors.
The rationale was, ofcourse: "progress," elhnocentrically defined as movement toward a Western (and in most cases capilalist) way of life.
Critics of Ihis view, aIlhough out numbered, were significant and vocal.
Prominent among Ihem, for example, was Gunder Frank. Basing his analysis largelyon his work in Latin America, he mainlained Ihat "development" does noi improve quality of life,first, because it does not respond to Ihe needs of people, and second, because it magnifies social inequality -- social and economic disparity -- increasing holh poverty and weallh and therefore Ihe gap hCtween them, wilhin and between societies (Frank, 1967; 1969).
Based upon Iheir experience in developing societies and in cross-eultural research, anthropologist have come to include many of the most persistent skeptics and critics of development projects and of Ihe very concept of development. This is because anlhropologists tend to study, and Iherefore to be intimately familiar with,lhose "targeted" by development schemes --Ihose who are to bedeveloped. That is,lhey corne to know Ihose whose lives and environments are to be managed -- often are to be exploited -- for development. To know such people is to underSland Ihem and to underSland Ihem leads one to empalhize with them and Iheir problems.
Not only are development and its goals almost always defined, designed andimplemented by outsiders but, as a result, whatever benefits may accrue go to Ihose same outsiders or Iheir allies among elites of Ihe targeted societies. This
7
isnot10 say that development is always intentionally exploitative and selfishly motivated. nor that its advocates and practitioners are always thoughtlessly callous. Such plans may actually be believed 10 be beneficial 10 the target populations. But because they arenotgenerated from within they arenotbased on the experience of those 10 be developed (nor even on signif1C3lltfamiliarity with that experience). As a result development schemes most often arenot responsive 10 people's cilcumstanees and needs and therefore havemost often proved 10 be inappropriate at best. counlet-productive -- ranging fromdamaging 10 devastating -- at worst For examples. see Bodley. editor. 1998;anicles in near! yevery issue ofthejournalCultural Survival Quanerly; and suchcase studies as those by Gross, 1971, and by R. Franke, 1977.Bothofthelauer are described in Koaalc:, 1987a: 340-345; and in 1987b:492-497, in thecontextoftwoexcellent chapters relevant here: "Anthropology and economic development" (KoaaIc:.
1987a: 332-355; 1987b:484-507). and "Applied anthropology" (Koaalc:.
1987a:356-376; 1987b: 508-528).
Why this dismal record on the pan of even well-meaning. benevolently motivated development people and agencies? Quite obviously becauseofthe ethnocentric view by planners and policy malcers of what constitutes
"development." of what constitutes "progress," even of what constitutes a
"standard of living."
The standards -- the criteria -- for development arc those of Westetn economics, of Western politics, of Western technology, ofWestetn stylesoflife.
This is generallytruewhether the planners and policy malcers are Westetn people or not-- forthosein positions 10 become plannersandpolicy malcers. regardless of nationality or background. arc nearly always those who have beenInlined according to Western standards, often in Western institutions, andhave been assimilated 10 Western values -- co-opted by whathasbeen teemed "academic colonialism" (Saberwal, I968. cf. Berreman, I969) or its bureaucraticequivalent They are, in shon, the expatriates. the educated, the affluent.theelite. and in all cases, the Westcrnized.
Thus, for example, we have the uniquely Westetn. but almost universally employed concept of the "Gross National Product" (measured bythemonetary value of commercial production) as a measure of prosperity, of desirable
"development" In fact. we have the broader. butequaIly ethnocentricconcept of
"economic growth" as a measure of economic health -- an endlessprocessof striving in an ever-increasing spiral ofcompetitive production and consumption.
with a predictable complement of winners and losers (more losers thanwinners), 8
as healthy, desirable, even necessary,ratherthan a conceptofa stable economy, fulfilling theneedsand wants ofthemembersofa society, as was the case for morethan99 percentofhurnan existence, and as is the case for most of the people alive in the world today. As
if
ordinary people will benefit from the kinds of cilcumstances that define a "growing" economy, or a "healthy" grossnational productAsifanyone but the lucky and ruthless venture capitalists can benefit from such cilcumstanees.Asifprofits put in at the lOp of the economic pyramid will "trickle down" 10 the wage laborers, 10 the subsistence farmer. 10say nothing ofthe genuinely poor. In short. as ifconsumption and accumulation weremeasures of well-being.One ofthe most clear! yandpassionatelystated discussions ofthe implications of these phenomena is 10 be found in an essay by Ivan lIIich,aimed at an American audience but entitled (with intentional irony) as if it weredirected to those of developing nations. "Outwiuing the 'Developed' Countries" (lIIich, 1969). He writes from a position very similar to my own, stating ncarthe end of his essay that
"There is a normal course for those who malce development policies. whether they live in Nonh or South America, in Russiaor Israel. It is 10 define development and to set its goals in ways with which they are familiar. which they are accustomed to use in orderto satisfy their own needs, and which permit them to work through the institutions over which they have power or control. This formula has failed. and must fail. There is not enough money in the world for development 10 succeed along these lines, not even in the combined arms and space budgets of the super-powers" (p. 24).
He begins the essay by describing the self-defeating limitations 10 the imagination of developers in the context of the "developed" worldfrom which they come:
"So persuasive is the power of the institutions we have created that they shape nOl only our preferences, but actually our senseof possibilities. We have forgotten how to speak about modern transponation lIlat docs not rely on automobiles and airplanes. Our conceptions of modern health care emphasize our ability to prolong the lives of the desperately ill. We have become unable to thinkof better education except in terms of more complex schools and teachers trained for ever longer periodS. Huge institutions producing costly
9 isnot10 say that development is always intentionally exploitative and selfishly
motivated. nor that its advocates and practitioners are always thoughtlessly callous. Such plans may actually be believed 10 be beneficial 10 the target populations. But because they arenotgenerated from within they arenotbased on the experience of those 10 be developed (nor even on signif1C3lltfamiliarity with that experience). As a result development schemes most often arenot responsive 10 people's cilcumstanees and needs and therefore havemost often proved 10 be inappropriate at best. counlet-productive -- ranging fromdamaging 10 devastating -- at worst For examples. see Bodley. editor. 1998;anicles in near! yevery issue ofthejournalCultural Survival Quanerly; and suchcase studies as those by Gross, 1971, and by R. Franke, 1977.Bothofthelauer are described in Koaalc:, 1987a: 340-345; and in 1987b:492-497, in thecontextoftwoexcellent chapters relevant here: "Anthropology and economic development" (KoaaIc:.
1987a: 332-355; 1987b:484-507). and "Applied anthropology" (Koaalc:.
1987a:356-376; 1987b: 508-528).
Why this dismal record on the pan of even well-meaning. benevolently motivated development people and agencies? Quite obviously becauseofthe ethnocentric view by planners and policy malcers of what constitutes
"development." of what constitutes "progress," even of what constitutes a
"standard of living."
The standards -- the criteria -- for development arc those of Westetn economics, of Western politics, of Western technology, ofWestetn stylesoflife.
This is generallytruewhether the planners and policy malcers are Westetn people or not-- forthosein positions 10 become plannersandpolicy malcers. regardless of nationality or background. arc nearly always those who have beenInlined according to Western standards, often in Western institutions, andhave been assimilated 10 Western values -- co-opted by whathasbeen teemed "academic colonialism" (Saberwal, I968. cf. Berreman, I969) or its bureaucraticequivalent They are, in shon, the expatriates. the educated, the affluent.theelite. and in all cases, the Westcrnized.
Thus, for example, we have the uniquely Westetn. but almost universally employed concept of the "Gross National Product" (measured bythemonetary value of commercial production) as a measure of prosperity, of desirable
"development" In fact. we have the broader. butequaIly ethnocentricconcept of
"economic growth" as a measure of economic health -- an endlessprocessof striving in an ever-increasing spiral ofcompetitive production and consumption.
with a predictable complement of winners and losers (more losers thanwinners), 8
as healthy, desirable, even necessary,ratherthan a conceptofa stable economy, fulfilling theneedsand wants ofthemembersofa society, as was the case for morethan99 percentofhurnan existence, and as is the case for most of the people alive in the world today. As
if
ordinary people will benefit from the kinds of cilcumstances that define a "growing" economy, or a "healthy" grossnational productAsifanyone but the lucky and ruthless venture capitalists can benefit from such cilcumstanees.Asifprofits put in at the lOp of the economic pyramid will "trickle down" 10 the wage laborers, 10 the subsistence farmer. 10say nothing ofthe genuinely poor. In short. as ifconsumption and accumulation weremeasures of well-being.One ofthe most clear! yandpassionatelystated discussions ofthe implications of these phenomena is 10 be found in an essay by Ivan lIIich,aimed at an American audience but entitled (with intentional irony) as if it weredirected to those of developing nations. "Outwiuing the 'Developed' Countries" (lIIich, 1969). He writes from a position very similar to my own, stating ncarthe end of his essay that
"There is a normal course for those who malce development policies. whether they live in Nonh or South America, in Russiaor Israel. It is 10 define development and to set its goals in ways with which they are familiar. which they are accustomed to use in orderto satisfy their own needs, and which permit them to work through the institutions over which they have power or control. This formula has failed. and must fail. There is not enough money in the world for development 10 succeed along these lines, not even in the combined arms and space budgets of the super-powers" (p. 24).
He begins the essay by describing the self-defeating limitations 10 the imagination of developers in the context of the "developed" worldfrom which they come:
"So persuasive is the power of the institutions we have created that they shape nOl only our preferences, but actually our senseof possibilities. We have forgotten how to speak about modern transponation lIlat docs not rely on automobiles and airplanes. Our conceptions of modern health care emphasize our ability to prolong the lives of the desperately ill. We have become unable to thinkof better education except in terms of more complex schools and teachers trained for ever longer periodS. Huge institutions producing costly
9
I I
services dominate the horiwns of our inventiveness.
"We have embodied our world view into our institutions and are now their prisoners. Factories, news media, hospitals, governments, andschoolsproducegoods and services packaged to conlain our view of the world. We -- the rich -- conceive of progress as the expansion of these establishments .
"In lessthana hundred years industrial society has molded patent solutions tohasic human needs and converted us to the belief that man's needs were shaped by the Creator as demands for the products we have invented" (p.20).
Further along in his argument he continues:
"[The] concrete consequences of underdevelopment are rampant;
but underdevelopmenl is also a state of mind, and understanding it as a state of mind, or as a form of consciousness, is the critical problem.
Underdevelopment as a state of mind occurs when mass needsare converted to the demand for new brands of packaged solutions which are forever beyond the reach of the majority [Itisexemplified in]
the translation of thirst into the need for a Coke [and in] the intense promotion of schooling [which) leads toSOclose an identification of school auendanceandeducation that in everyday language the two terms are interchangeable. Oncetheimagination ofan entire population has been ... indoctrinated to believe thal school has a monopoly on formal education, then the illiterate can be taxed to provide free high school and university education for the children of the rich" (pp. 21- 22).
He concludes with his recommendations:
"Defining alternatives to the products and institutions which now pre-empt the field [of 'development') is difficul~ nOl only because these products and institutions shape our conception of realily itself, bUl also because the construction of new possibilities requires [an extraordinary] concentration of will and intelligence ... [on what] we have become accuslomed over the IaSl century to call research." (p.23) He hastens 10 make clear thatheis not referring 10 basic research,
10
although ithasits place and its value, nor is he writing "of the billions of dollars annually spent on applied research [thai is] largely spent by existing instihltions on the perfection and marketing of their own products" (p. 23).Rather:
"I am calling for research on alternatives totheproducts which now dominate themarket.
"... This counter-research on fundamental alternalives to prepackaged solutions is the element most critically needed if the poor nations are to have a liveable fUlure .... [Il must be realistic, taking] as one of its assumptions the continued lack of capital in the Third World.
"The difficulties of such research are obvious. The researcher must flISt of all doubt what is obvious to every eye. Second, he must persuade [or pressure] those who have the power of decision to act against their own short·run interests .... And, finally, he must survive as an individual in a world he is altempting to change fundamentally so that his fellows among the privileged minority see him as a destroyer of the very ground on which all of us stand" (pp. 23-24).
Thatisthe formidable, visionary task to which IIIich devoted his life -- a task he considered essential if human kind are 10 survive with lives worth living. I urge anyone involved in development, interested in or concerned about the process, 10readthat essay.
Returning to my own rermarks, I would say, in sum, that "progress" as it is usually conceived relies upon bigness and complexity of ever increasing proportions; it relies on political centralization, bureaucracy, social hierarchy, specialization of labor combined with heavy reliance on capital intensive, high energy technology; on market economies artificially creating "needs" and the dependency they generate through massive use of advcrtising (Bodley, 1967:
esp. 180-186, 214·217; Bodley, 1990: esp. 94-151; cf. Berreman, 1981a;
Berreman,ed., 1981 b). It is expressed in rampant lechnological proliferation and sophistication, in increasingly reckless resource exploitation and foolhardy international advenhlrism.Ithas brought about an ever widening gap between the rich andpoornations of the world, and belween the rich and poor cilizens of virtually every nalion in the world including the United States of America.
Economists report an increase in the wealth ofthemoslafnuentone-third 10 one- fifth of the populations of most of the world's nalions since World War II, and
11
I I
services dominate the horiwns of our inventiveness.
"We have embodied our world view into our institutions and are now their prisoners. Factories, news media, hospitals, governments, andschoolsproducegoods and services packaged to conlain our view of the world. We -- the rich -- conceive of progress as the expansion of these establishments .
"In lessthana hundred years industrial society has molded patent solutions tohasic human needs and converted us to the belief that man's needs were shaped by the Creator as demands for the products we have invented" (p.20).
Further along in his argument he continues:
"[The] concrete consequences of underdevelopment are rampant;
but underdevelopmenl is also a state of mind, and understanding it as a state of mind, or as a form of consciousness, is the critical problem.
Underdevelopment as a state of mind occurs when mass needsare converted to the demand for new brands of packaged solutions which are forever beyond the reach of the majority [Itisexemplified in]
the translation of thirst into the need for a Coke [and in] the intense promotion of schooling [which) leads toSOclose an identification of school auendanceandeducation that in everyday language the two terms are interchangeable. Oncetheimagination ofan entire population has been ... indoctrinated to believe thal school has a monopoly on formal education, then the illiterate can be taxed to provide free high school and university education for the children of the rich" (pp. 21- 22).
He concludes with his recommendations:
"Defining alternatives to the products and institutions which now pre-empt the field [of 'development') is difficul~ nOl only because these products and institutions shape our conception of realily itself, bUl also because the construction of new possibilities requires [an extraordinary] concentration of will and intelligence ... [on what] we have become accuslomed over the IaSl century to call research." (p.23) He hastens 10 make clear thatheis not referring 10 basic research,
10
although ithasits place and its value, nor is he writing "of the billions of dollars annually spent on applied research [thai is] largely spent by existing instihltions on the perfection and marketing of their own products" (p. 23).Rather:
"I am calling for research on alternatives totheproducts which now dominate themarket.
"... This counter-research on fundamental alternalives to prepackaged solutions is the element most critically needed if the poor nations are to have a liveable fUlure .... [Il must be realistic, taking] as one of its assumptions the continued lack of capital in the Third World.
"The difficulties of such research are obvious. The researcher must flISt of all doubt what is obvious to every eye. Second, he must persuade [or pressure] those who have the power of decision to act against their own short·run interests .... And, finally, he must survive as an individual in a world he is altempting to change fundamentally so that his fellows among the privileged minority see him as a destroyer of the very ground on which all of us stand" (pp. 23-24).
Thatisthe formidable, visionary task to which IIIich devoted his life -- a task he considered essential if human kind are 10 survive with lives worth living. I urge anyone involved in development, interested in or concerned about the process, 10readthat essay.
Returning to my own rermarks, I would say, in sum, that "progress" as it is usually conceived relies upon bigness and complexity of ever increasing proportions; it relies on political centralization, bureaucracy, social hierarchy, specialization of labor combined with heavy reliance on capital intensive, high energy technology; on market economies artificially creating "needs" and the dependency they generate through massive use of advcrtising (Bodley, 1967:
esp. 180-186, 214·217; Bodley, 1990: esp. 94-151; cf. Berreman, 1981a;
Berreman,ed., 1981 b). It is expressed in rampant lechnological proliferation and sophistication, in increasingly reckless resource exploitation and foolhardy international advenhlrism.Ithas brought about an ever widening gap between the rich andpoornations of the world, and belween the rich and poor cilizens of virtually every nalion in the world including the United States of America.
Economists report an increase in the wealth ofthemoslafnuentone-third 10 one- fifth of the populations of most of the world's nalions since World War II, and
11
